The enclosed report represents the end result of a ten-month effort to offer abstract statistics and corresponding evaluation for the Supreme Courtroom’s 2024 Time period (October 2024 to June 2025), which we hope to duplicate for future phrases. It’s supposed to serve principally as an appendix for the SCOTUSblog Statpack with extra metrics associated to oral arguments and the Courtroom’s docket.
Our purpose was to offer a complete overview of the time period whereas recognizing that a lot of what we provide stays surface-level information. Lately, some have taken exception to how information equivalent to these are used, notably because it pertains to drawing generalizable claims of the Courtroom and its Justices. We want to take the time to state our place on these considerations:
First, we absolutely acknowledge that our information offers solely surface-level inferences. As many have identified, the Courtroom retains appreciable discretion with respect to the dimensions and scope of its docket. Certainly, a substantial majority of the Courtroom’s decision-making is figuring out which appeals is not going to obtain evaluation, quite than what’s going to. It isn’t misplaced on us that the inhabitants of orally argued and determined instances within the 2024 time period will not be absolutely emblematic of the Courtroom’s broader decision-making. Whereas we do present statistics on the docket extra usually, we advise pursuing extra scholarship specializing in this space.
Second, our abstract analyses don’t make distinctions between instances of various significance to the nationwide discourse. Not as a result of we fail to acknowledge that these distinctions clearly exist, however as a result of our purpose is to offer an summary of the Justices’ most observable decision-making behaviors – no matter the broader significance a few of these selections might have in comparison with others. Briefly, they’re numbers – nothing extra, nothing much less. There isn’t a underlying agenda in our resolution to current topline statistics.
Lastly, we acknowledge that these information don’t belong to us in perpetuity. As soon as we’ve revealed our report, any particular person, outlet, or entity are free to make use of them – simply as we’ve been facilitating open entry to our information all through the time period. Nonetheless, we ask those that learn our report back to be conscientious of the truth that we can’t management – nor will we notably want to management – how they’re used. The Supreme Courtroom retains particular significance in our nationwide discourse, and its selections can absolutely draw appreciable divisions amongst observers. Some readers might take exception to how others select to interpret these information. We ask that you simply not maintain it towards us.
We want to give particular because of Vikram Narasimhan, Zachary Shemtob, Sarah Isgur, Kelsey Dallas, and all those that provided steering and analysis help within the growth of this report.
– Adam Feldman (J.D., Ph.D.); Jake S. Truscott (Ph.D.)
Statpack Prolonged Ot24
10.5MB ∙ PDF file
How To Precisely Interpret Unanimity In Supreme Courtroom Choice
341KB ∙ PDF file
Subscribe for extra. Further deep dives for paid subscribers. Please share with others.
Adam Feldman runs the litigation consulting firm Optimized Authorized Options LLC. Try extra of his writing at Legalytics and Empirical SCOTUS. For extra info, write Adam at [email protected]. Discover him on Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.
